Until the Bitter End: on Prospect Theory in a Dynamic Context

Until the Bitter End: On Prospect Theory in a Dynamic Context By Sebastian Ebert and Philipp Strack∗ We provide a result on prospect theory decision makers who are na¨ıveabout the time-inconsistency induced by probability weighting. If a market offers a sufficiently rich set of investment strate- gies, investors postpone their trading decisions indefinitely due to a strong preference for skewness. We conclude that probability weighting in combination with na¨ıvitéleads to unrealistic predictions for a wide range of dynamic setups. JEL: G02, D03, D81 Keywords: Behavioral Economics, Disposition Effect, Irre- versible Investment, Prospect Theory, Skewness Preference, Time- Inconsistency. Cumulative prospect theory (CPT, Tversky and Kahneman 1992) is arguably the most prominent alternative to expected utility theory (EUT, Bernoulli 1738/1954, von Neumann and Morgenstern 1944). EUT is well-studied in static and dynamic settings, ranging from game theory over investment problems to institutional economics. In contrast, CPT with probability weighting—the assumption that individuals overweight unlikely and extreme events—has mostly focused on the static case. This paper studies the dynamic investment and gambling behavior of CPT agents who are na¨ıve, i.e., unaware of being time-inconsistent. Our main result shows that na¨ıve CPT agents never stop gambling when the set of gambling or investment opportunities is not too restrictive. This never-stopping result applies to highly unfavorable gambles and investments with arbitrarily large expected losses per time. It follows from a static result on skewness preference under CPT that we label skewness preference in the small: a CPT agent always wants to take a simple, small, lottery-like risk, even if it has negative expectation. At any point in time the na¨ıve CPT investor reasons “If I lose just a little bit more, I will stop. And if I gain, I will continue.” This simple strategy results in a right-skewed gambling experience that is attractive due to skewness preference in the small. Once a loss has occurred, however, a new skewed gambling strategy comes to the na¨ıve CPT investor’s mind, and—as long as such a strategy is feasible—he continues gambling. No “malicious” third party is responsible for manipulating the CPT investor into this behavior. Never stopping arises naturally in numerous prominent economic and financial decision situations, thereby yielding predictions that are arguably too extreme. In a casino gambling model in the spirit of Barberis (2012), the na¨ıve CPT gambler may gamble until the bitter end, i.e., until bankruptcy. ∗ Ebert: Tilburg University, Department of Finance, PO Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands. Phone: +31(0)13 466 3126, Email: [email protected]; Strack: University of California at Berkeley, Department of Economics, 513 Evans Hall, Berkeley, 94720 CA, USA; E-mail: [email protected]. First version: February 15, 2012. This version: December 23, 2014. Acknowledgments: We thank Nicholas Barberis, Dan Benjamin, Stefano DellaVigna, Joost Driessen, Urs Fischbacher, Paul Heidhues, Botond K˝oszegi,Daniel Krähmer, Ulrike Malmendier, Matthew Rabin, Sven Rady, Peter Wakker, Georg Weizsäcker, and three anonymous referees for helpful comments. We further thank seminar participants at Berkeley, Bonn, Cologne, DIW Berlin, EMLYON, ETH Zurich, Konstanz, NHH Bergen, LMU Munich, Mannheim, St. Gallen, Tilburg, VU Amsterdam, Warwick Business School, as well as participants of the 2012 European Winter Meeting of the Econometric Society, the 2012 Verein fürSocialpolitik Annual Meeting, the 2012 European Economic Association Annual Congress, the 2012 DIW Behavioral Economics Workshop, and the 2012 Fundamentals of Uncertainty and Risk Meeting for their comments and suggestions. This research was initiated during the authors’ PhD studies at the Bonn Graduate School of Economics, when Ebert participated in the 2nd Yale Summer School on Behavioral Finance and when Strack was a visiting researcher at Yale. Financial support from the Hausdorff Center for Mathematics, the German Research Foundation (DGF), and the Dutch Research Foundation (NWO) through a Veni Grant is gratefully acknowledged. The authors declare that they have no relevant or material financial interests that relate to the research described in this paper. 1 We also study the irreversible investment problem of Dixit and Pindyck (1994), and prove that na¨ıve CPT agents never exercise American options even when it is profitable to exercise them immediately. Finally, our results imply that CPT cannot predict the disposition effect (Shefrin and Statman 1985) for na¨ıve investors. The results in this paper hold for a wide range of CPT specifications and are independent of the investor’s reference point, which determines which outcomes are viewed as gains and losses. Our crucial assumption on CPT is that probability weighting is strong enough relative to loss aversion (the trait that losses feel worse than comparable gains feel good). This assumption, which ensures that individuals like skewness enough to bare the risk of potential losses, is fulfilled by all commonly employed CPT parametrizations that also received extensive empirical support. We define CPT preferences precisely in Section I. In Section II, we present our static result that CPT implies skewness preference in the small. Section III presents the never-stopping result. Section IV discusses the implications for CPT models of casino gambling, real-option investment behavior, and the disposition effect. In Section V, we discuss options to evade the never-stopping result through relaxing our three main assumptions: probability weighting stronger than loss aversion, na¨ıvité,and the availability of small and skewed gambles. Section VI summarizes our results. All proofs are in the appendix. Several additional results and illustrations are collected in a web appendix (Appendix W). I. Prospect Theory with More Probability Weighting than Loss Aversion We study CPT preferences over real-valued random variables X. In CPT, outcomes are evaluated by a value function (also called utility function) relative to a reference point that separates all outcomes into gains and losses. A weighting function distorts cumulative probabilities, as suggested by Quiggin (1982), rather than the probabilities of individual outcomes as in the original prospect theory of Kahneman and Tversky (1979). The idea of a reference point first appears in Markowitz’s (1952) seminal paper. Common choices for the reference point are the status quo of current wealth or expected wealth. For simplicity, first consider a binary risk L(p, b, a) that yields outcome b with probability p ∈ (0, 1), and a < b otherwise. A prospect theory agent evaluates binary risks relative to the reference point r ∈ R as (1 − w+(p))U(a) + w+(p)U(b), if r ≤ a (1) CPT (L(p, b, a)) = w−(1 − p)U(a) + w+(p)U(b), if a < r ≤ b w−(1 − p)U(a) + (1 − w−(1 − p))U(b) if b < r with non-decreasing weighting functions w−, w+ : [0, 1] → [0, 1] with w+(0) = w−(0) = 0 and + − w (1) = w (1) = 1, and a continuous, strictly increasing value function U : R → R with U(r) = 0 that satisfy Assumptions 1 and 2 stated below. The CPT utility of general random variables X with possibly continuous outcomes can be defined as1 Z Z + − (2) CPT (X) = w (P(U(X) > y))dy − w (P(U(X) < y))dy, R+ R− but to understand the results of this paper it is sufficient to have formula (1) in mind. The following assumption on the value function means that any kinks it may have are not too extreme, which excludes infinite loss aversion. 1This expression indeed nests formula (1) for binary lotteries as well as the well-known definition of Tversky and Kahneman (1992) for general discrete prospects (cf. Kothiyal, Spinu, and Wakker 2011). 2 ASSUMPTION 1 (Value function): The value function U has finite left and right derivatives, ∂ U(x) and ∂ U(x), at every wealth level x. Further, λ = sup ∂−U(x) < ∞ exists. − + x∈R ∂+U(x) In the well-studied case where U is S-shaped (i.e. convex over losses, concave over gains) and smooth everywhere except at the reference point, λ = ∂−U(r) measures loss aversion; see Köbberling and ∂+U(r) Wakker (2005).2 Note that Assumption 1 does not impose any restriction on r and thus the choice of the reference point is immaterial to our results. Moreover, many functional forms other than S-shape satisfy Assumption 1. The final important feature of CPT is probability weighting, which is the driving force of this paper’s results.3 The assumptions we impose on the probability weighting functions are satisfied by the commonly used (inverse-S-shaped, i.e., first concave and then convex) probability weighting functions of Tversky and Kahneman (1992), Goldstein and Einhorn (1987), Prelec (1998), and the neo-additive weighting function (Wakker 2010, p. 208), for all parameter values. ASSUMPTION 2 (Weighting Functions): There exists at least one p ∈ (0, 1) such that + λp 1) w (p) > 1−p+λp and − 1−p 2) w (1 − p) < 1−p+λp . In Appendix W.1, we show that a sufficient condition for Assumption 2 is4 0 0 (3) min{w+ (0), w− (1)} > λ. This condition says that extremely unlikely gains are overweighted and extremely likely losses are underweighted, both by more than the loss aversion parameter. Therefore, we refer to Assumption 2 as probability weighting stronger than loss aversion. Appendix W.1 provides a deeper examination of Assumption 2 and examples for when it may be violated. II. Skewness Preference in the Small This paper starts out with a static result on prospect theory preferences over small, skewed risks. We say that a risk is attractive if the CPT utility of current wealth plus the risk is strictly higher than the CPT utility of current wealth.

Load more